Williams v. Cates et al

Filing 104

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Deny Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief re 102 , 103 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/8/17. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Twenty-One Day Objection Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

HORACE MANN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.
CATE, et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Doc. 102, 103)

Defendants.

13

Case No. 1:12-cv-00730-LJO-SKO (PC)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

14
15

On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order directing that two boxes of his

16

legal materials which are stored at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”)

17

be sent to him at his current facility of incarceration -- Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). (Doc.

18

102.) On August 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed another motion in which he indicates that he has received

19

one of the boxes of his legal materials from SATF, but that he needs the other one as well to

20

prosecute this action. (Doc. 103.) Both of these motions are construed as seeking preliminary

21

injunctive relief.

22

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must establish that he has standing to seek preliminary

23

injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493-94, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149

24

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff “must show that

25

he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat

26

must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to

27

challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will

28

prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation and quotation marks omitted);
1

1

Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

2

The claims on which Plaintiff proceeds in this action arise from events that occurred at

3

Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). However, Plaintiff was apparently transferred to SATF and

4

is currently housed at MCSP. Plaintiff thus lacks standing in this action to seek relief directed at

5

remedying his current conditions of confinement at MCSP or to require SATF staff to forward his

6

legal property to him. Thus, Plaintiff=s motions for a preliminary injunction should be denied.1

7

However, the Wardens and Litigation Offices at SATF and MCSP, as well as defense counsel, are

8

requested to look into the matter and facilitate the delivery of the second box of legal property

9

from SATF to Plaintiff at MCSP.

10

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motions for

11

injunctive relief, filed on July 26, 2017, (Doc. 102) and August 7, 2017, (Doc. 103), be DENIED.

12

The Clerk’s Office is directed to forward a copy of this order and Plaintiff's motions to the

13

Wardens’ offices and Litigation Coordinators at SATF and MCSP to assist them with attempting

14

to locate and facilitating the delivery of Plaintiff’s second box of legal property.

15

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

16

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21

17

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

18

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned “Objections to

19

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the

20

specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

21

839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 8, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a
preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376
(2008). However, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motions in light of the fact that Plaintiff lacks
standing on this issue.

2